ARTICLE
18 November 2025

Legal & Judicial Updates (October 2025)

HS
Hammurabi & Solomon

Contributor

Hammurabi & Solomon Partners, established in 2001 by Dr. Manoj Kumar, ranks among India’s top 15 law firms, offering a client-focused, solutions-driven approach across law, policy, and regulation. With over 16 leading partners and offices in key Indian cities, the firm provides comprehensive legal services, seamlessly guiding clients through the complexities of the Indian legal landscape. Known for quality and innovative problem-solving, H&S Partners is committed to client satisfaction through prompt, tailored counsel and deep sector expertise, impacting both national and international legal frameworks.

An arbitral award was passed against the Respondents.
India Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Hammurabi & Solomon are most popular:
  • within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Energy and Natural Resources and International Law topic(s)
  • with Finance and Tax Executives
  • in South America
  • with readers working within the Banking & Credit, Healthcare and Law Firm industries

NOTABLE JUDGEMENTS OCTOBER 2025

ARBITRATION LAW

  1. Case Title: Chakardhari Sureka Vs. Prem Lata Sureka Through Spa & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 919

Court: Supreme Court of India

Decided on: 15.09.2025

Brief Facts:

  • An arbitral award was passed against the Respondents.
  • The Respondents filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which were rejected.
  • The Respondents preferred an appeal under Section 37 of the Act against the rejection.
  • Meanwhile, the decree-holder put the award into execution before the High Court of Delhi.
  • By order dated 09.05.2025, the High Court adjourned the execution proceedings on the ground that the Section 37 appeal was pending.

Issues:

  1. Whether the Execution Court can defer execution proceedings of an arbitral award merely because an appeal under Section 37 is pending against the rejection of objections under Section 34, in the absence of any stay order against the award.

Judgement:

The Supreme Court held that:

  • Since the Section 34 petition had been dismissed and no interim stay order had been granted in the pending Section 37 appeal, the award remained enforceable.
  • The Execution Court ought not to defer consideration of the execution application merely on the ground of pendency of the Section 37 appeal.
  • Questions regarding executability of the award can, however, be addressed by the Execution Court in accordance with law, if objections are raised.
  • The Court directed that, subject to any interim order in the pending Section 37 appeal, the Execution Court is free to proceed with execution of the award in accordance with law, after giving due hearing to the parties. The appeal was accordingly disposed of with these observations. [Click Here]

Click here to read the full report.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More